AELLBERG, Sweden - Saudi Arabias ambassador to the United States said on Friday Saudi citizens detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should be allowed to return to their homeland to face trial there. Attending a conference on globalisation, Prince Turki Al Faisal said Saudis incarcerated in the centre for suspected links to terrorist organisations should be delivered to Saudi Arabia. If there are any crimes that they have committed they will be tried in Saudi courts and face punishment for those crimes, he told AFP.
Somehow I just can't quite bring myself to trust him. Don't know why ...
Prince Turki Al Faisal said it was against human rights to indefinitely incarcerate people without charging them. Choosing the easier path of simply excluding whoever it is from society and from considerations of human rights and civil liberties would be inimical to the practice of human rights and civil liberties, he said.
And if you can't trust a Saooodi on human rights, who can you trust?
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Since the only thing they did "wrong" was to wage war on infidels, I can't seem them getting anything more than a suspended sentence or perhaps one lash in Saudi Arabia. That assumes that they aren't granted amnesty outright.
Sorry, but the Geneva Convention says we can hold them until the end of hostilities. Since the hostilities are likely to go on for many, many years, we can't let them go soon. We would like to try them with military tribunals, but our Supreme Court says we can't. So we will have to wait until Congress passes a new law, and the Supreme Court rules on that before we can have trials. By the time all of this gets settled, the prisoners will probably die of old age.
Of course, the tribunals could hand down death sentences, as prescribed by the Geneva Conventions. But at least then the Saudi prisoners wouldn't have to endure the agony of not knowing their fates.
#4
Considering Rambler's point, we might want Carla del Ponte to run the tribunals. She hates us, sure, and she'd want all these guys released, but it would take her years to get it done ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/01/2006 11:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
#2 Ummm, I'm not up on law, but isn't there a statute against retroactive prosecution.
Doesn't apply if you're male and white [and gawd forbid if you are a registered Rep]. Double jeopardy, innocent till proven guilty, etc. Nope, nope, no longer applies.
#8
Saudi Arabias ambassador to the United States said on Friday Saudi citizens detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should be allowed to return to their homeland to face trial there.
Sorry, but Human Rights Watch won't let us. Something about them probably being tortured (for screwing up and getting captured) on their return to Soddy Arabia.
Can't hand 'em back, can't try 'em, can't hold 'em.
Should just hang 'em and get it over with.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/01/2006 23:11 Comments ||
Top||
Britain's parliamentary Defence Select Committee Friday called on Prime Minister Tony Blair's government to explain the purpose of the country's retaining nuclear weapons.
There needs to be a "genuine and meaningful" public debate on whether the UK should keep its nuclear weapons, the all-party group of MPs said in a report questioning whether the UK needs to replace its ageing Trident missile systems. "We need a full discussion of the role and purpose of the nuclear deterrent and the changing strategic environment," said Conservative MP James Arbuthnot, who chairs the committee.
Sure, why not let the US carry all the burden?
Blair announced this week that the government will decide later this year whether or how to replace the fleet of Trident missile- carrying submarines that form Britain's nuclear arsenal.
But the report said witnesses to its inquiry argued that a strategic nuclear deterrent could serve "no useful or practical purpose" in countering international terrorism, which ministers say is the most pressing threat currently facing the UK. The Ministry of Defence (MoD), it said, must justify the retention of nuclear weapons after hearing no evidence of an impending military threat from other countries. "Before making any decisions on the future of the strategic nuclear deterrent, the MoD should explain its understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident successor system," the committee said.
You'll notice the US hasn't dumped all its nukes, either, even though the old Soviet Union is gone. There's a reason for that. Several reasons. One of them is labeled on the map as 'Iran'.
"If the MoD believes in the value of the nuclear deterrent as an insurance policy, rather than in response to any specific threat, we believe it is important to say clearly that is the reason for needing the deterrent," it added.
The report also suggested that the government should clarify whether it believed the nuclear deterrent was important to Britain's "international influence and status." "We accept that future threats are unknowable, but, clearly, a world in which nuclear proliferation had taken hold would create deep uncertainties in international relations," the report warned.
"Sure, everyone else wants 'em, but that doesn't mean we have to have them!"
The MPs expressed surprise and disappointment at the refusal of the MoD to give evidence to the inquiry and said any decision to keep nuclear weapons, must be made "only after a full public debate ... It must not be made in secret".
Because it's not right for a democracy to ever have secrets, unless socialists are in charge. Then it's okay, particularly when it's about financial dealings ...
They also concluded that Britain could scale back its nuclear arsenal now that the Cold War is over and also pointed out their view that an extension program to the existing system would mean that a decision on replacement could be deferred until 2014.
The report was welcomed as a balanced and reasonable assessment by the Oxford Research Group, which also suggested that a delay would give time for a much-needed fundamental re-assessment of the emerging post cold-war security environment. "There is a particular opportunity for the UK to bring new life to international negotiations on non-proliferation and multilateral disarmament," said ORG director John Sloboda, who gave evidence to the inquiry.
As well as questioning the purpose of a nuclear deterrent in the context of current security threats, the committee's report also put forward the abolition of nuclear weapons as an option for consideration.
Which is what they live for.
It also considered the supposed independence of the US-supplied Trident system and suggested the public debate over its future should address "the operational and diplomatic impact of any potential dependency on the United States."
Because the U.S. is ucky.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How 'bout if the Brits re-engineer their bombs to match the soon-to-be re-done American ones? Then they'll save pots of money on annual maintenance, too!
#5
*happy smile* grb. These things happen when it's only pixels on a screen instead of real, live people. (Hope you didn't notice how often I've had to apologise recently!)
#6
How 'bout if the Brits re-engineer their bombs to match the soon-to-be re-done American ones? Then they'll save pots of money on annual maintenance, too!
Actually the UK uses a variant of the US W76 warhead.
From a Greenpeace document submitted to a UK parliament committee...
The arming, fusing and firing system are procured of the shelf from US manufacturers and Sandia.
The high explosive is different but US weapons labs tests the performance.
The Neutron generator used is the MC438, bought from the USA.
The Mark 4 re-entry body is purchased from the USA.
The UK does not own its Trident missiles - they are leased from the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.
The Mark 6 guidance system used on the UK's Trident D5 missiles is designed and made in the USA by Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.
UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines are UK-made, but many aspects of the design are copied from US submarines and many components are bought from the USA.
British nuclear warheads are designed and made at Aldermaston near Reading. Aldermaston is part managed by the US corporation Lockheed Martin. Repairs to Britian's Trident submarine are carried out at Devonport, which is part managed by another US corporation, Halliburton.
The W76 warhead was tested at the US nuclear test site in Nevada in the early 1990s. The UK has no test site of its own. The missiles are test launched from British submarines under US supervision at Cape Canaveral off the Florida coast. These tests are analysed by the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University and by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.
Posted by: john ||
07/01/2006 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The British weapons designers at the AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment) are collaborating with US designers at Los Alamos on the RRW (reliable replament warhead).
They have already conducted several joint sub-critical nuclear tests.
Posted by: john ||
07/01/2006 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Britain's parliamentary Defence Select Committee Friday called on Prime Minister Tony Blair's government to explain the purpose of the country's retaining nuclear weapons.
#9
Actually if Britain wanted a nuclear deterrent without US assistance, it would need the help of France now.
The French have reportedly made the offer in the past.
Posted by: john ||
07/01/2006 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
THE Federal Government has issued a "please explain" to Qantas after it failed to report a bomb prank by a Queensland State of Origin star on a flight from Sydney to Melbourne.
Airport security was called aboard flight QF 427 after rugged Bulldogs rugby league forward Nate Myles was overheard asking teammate Hazem El Masri as crew prepared for take-off: "Have you got the bombs strapped on?"
The bomb jibe should have resulted in Myles being charged with a federal offence under new security laws.
The Aviation Transport Security Act introduced last year imposes a maximum $5500 fine for uttering such threats, even those made in jest.
Despite the stringent anti-terror law, Myles - who will play for the Maroons in the Origin series decider in Melbourne on Wednesday night - escaped with only a verbal reprimand. This was because Qantas failed to refer the matter to the Australian Federal Police or the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
A spokeswoman for Acting Federal Transport Minister Jim Lloyd said the department had no knowledge of the incident until contacted by The Sunday Mail yesterday.
"The incident has not been referred to either the Australian Federal Police or the Department of Transport and Regional Services," she said.
"The department has officially requested more information from Qantas about the circumstances surrounding this particular incident.
"When an incident is deemed a security threat, they have to notify us."
An AFP spokesman confirmed federal police were not notified and therefore did not investigate.
The incident happened on June 22, when the Bulldogs were travelling to Melbourne for a Friday night match against the Storm.
The flight attendant who overheard Myles' remark immediately alerted the plane's captain.
Airport security staff boarded the plane, delaying the flight 40 minutes as they interviewed Bulldogs chief executive Malcolm Noad, coach Steve Folkes and Myles.
Mr Noad last night told The Sunday Mail the club deeply regretted the incident.
"One of the players sitting next to Hazem said, 'Have you got the bombs strapped on,' " he said.
"A flight attendant heard him and reported it to the captain. The captain then passed it on to airport security. Understandably they take these things very seriously.
"Steve Folkes and I had to go and talk to the security officers. It delayed the take-off for about half an hour.
"The player originally thought it was a bit of a joke and obviously didn't appreciate the repercussions.
"We've spoken to him and we've spoken to all the players. There'll be no further action."
Gavin Orr, the manager of Myles, said: "It was a silly thing to do and the club has reprimanded him.
"Even if it's a joke, you've got to be careful what you say."
A Qantas spokesman said: "The Canterbury Bulldogs did travel on QF 427 on Thursday, June 22. A player was questioned in relation to an inappropriate comment.
"The matter was investigated and the player was allowed to travel."
Myles' mother Janet Evans said her son was extremely upset and remorseful about the incident.
She said Myles - an affable and talented young footballer from far north Queensland - never meant any harm by the comment.
"He was only talking to Hazem, it was not meant for anyone else's ears," Ms Evans said from her Cairns home.
Ms Evans said there was no need to counsel Myles over the incident.
"He didn't mean anything by it and he's very upset, very remorseful," she said.
"Nate's a good kid and he realises it's something that shouldn't have happened. It's not in his nature to do anything like that."
Other flying jesters who have not been so lucky include a 60-year-old Wagga Wagga man who joked that another passenger was carrying an explosive device.
His April 4, 2005, remarks caused a Regional Express aircraft to abort its takeoff from Sydney airport.
He was charged by AFP officers and fined $3000.
And on January 24, 2004, Queensland businessman William Bunting, 57, was arrested at Cairns airport when he allegedly told security officers he planned to board the plane and "tell them all I'm the bomber".
Traian Basescu, the Romanian president, yesterday said a defence ministry proposal to withdraw its troops from Iraq was "unacceptable". Calin Tariceanu, the prime minister, backed the plan to withdraw Romania's 890 troops from Iraq by the end of this year on the grounds that the mission was too costly.
The proposal needs to be approved by the ten-member supreme defence council, which is headed by Mr Basescu, and by parliament. The Iraq mission is unpopular with many people in the poor former-communist country, which hopes to enter the European Union next year. "The president considers as unacceptable the way the prime minister and the defence minister presented their opinions about the Romanian military presence in Iraq," Mr Basescu said. "Any decision about the national security issues should be taken after preliminary consultations among the Romanian state institutions and with our foreign partners."
Thank you, Romania. Their US embassy is here. Original press release here.I bet they'd appreciate a letter or three.
Anxious to show voters back home that Congress can do something about high gas prices, House lawmakers approved legislation Thursday that would expand drilling for oil and natural gas off most of the U.S. coast and Alaska. The bill, which passed on a 232-187 vote, would end a ban on new domestic offshore drilling that for 25 years confined such activity almost exclusively to the western and central Gulf of Mexico.
The bill would grant states more control over energy production in federal waters. It also would give states a portion of royalties and fees energy companies now pay exclusively to the federal government. The proposal marks the possibility of a major change in U.S. energy policy and a setback for environmentalists who warn that expanding offshore drilling would further pollute already troubled marine waters and put coasts at risk for oil spills.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So how do we get the retards in the Senate to vote for it?
#4
Boxer and DiFi will put a kibosh on it in the senate. The communists hold California hostage via the crroked politics of the Democratic party and the Judges and government department they own va the leadership of the state labor unions.
#6
#2: Tell them the rigs will be manned by illegal aliens.
Ummm, a quibble perhaps, but there's no such thing as an "Illegal Alien" in international waters.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It also would give states a portion of royalties and fees energy companies now pay exclusively to the federal government.
Ah, now I get it, a Bribe.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Not only the commie Senators from Cal but their peers from Florida will probably try to stop it as well.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/01/2006 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Interesting. I was going to say that there is not a chance in hadies that they could get the Californians to accept this, but when you think about it, there are only 2 Senators from CA. Let's see, wa, or, ca, ga, fl, maybe the carolinas and va, the northeastern states and hi. I suspect the liberal senators supported their coastal buddies when oil was $3 a barrel - but I suspect they can only get about 20 states to vote against this.
#12
The problem is that while there are only a few senators who are adamently opposed to oil-shore drilling, they usually manage to call in a lot of favors. It's the usual sort of horse-trading. Be sure they've let Kerry and Kennedy know that if their votes aren't forthcoming on the ban, the wind farms will end up being built in Nantucket. And so on.
They'll get their 40 senators to filibuster this easily :-(
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/01/2006 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
There was a wind farm at Nantucket
Dah dah' dah - dah dee' dee - dah dee'...
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/01/2006 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#15
#13: There was a wind farm at Nantucket
But the Senators there said "Aw Fuckit"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
#15 #13: There was a wind farm at Nantucket
But the Senators there said "Aw Fuckit"
I'm stromger than you.
This Windfarm is through,
My View trumps your Energy Bucket.
Anyone else want to top mine, should be easy.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Redneck Jim---ROFLMAO!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/01/2006 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Attention all globalists: Fidel and the ChiComs are already planning to pump off the FL coast.
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/01/2006 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I heard they already had a rig working.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#20
ecos, Donks and leftists trust Fidel and Chicoms to keep the environment safe, plus the evil capitalist pigs are not reaping the benefits
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2006 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I'm wrong, they already have many rigs working
Google "Cuba, oil rigs, gulf"
between 12 and 36 reported.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
The seven men who were arrested here last week on terror charges were shown Friday on undercover videotapes solemnly reciting oaths of loyalty to Al Qaeda, repeating the words that an F.B.I. informant had given them to say. The tapes, played at a federal court hearing by prosecutors, did not provide any evidence that the men had the money or firepower to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and federal buildings in five cities, as they are accused of conspiring to do, or that they had any actual ties to Al Qaeda. But during her presentation, the prosecutor, Jacqueline M. Arango, disclosed other new details of the case, among them that the group's leader, Narseal Batiste, had asked the undercover informant for rockets and semiautomatic rifles.
Lawyers for some of the men said in interviews this week that their clients knew little about Mr. Batiste's plans to attack the Sears Tower. Some of the lawyers criticized the new evidence presented Friday as a sign that the government had largely concocted other parts of the case and had lured the men into doing more than they would have on their own. "It's clearly a case of entrapment," said Nathan Clark, the lawyer for one of the defendants, Rotschild Augustine. Mr. Clark said the taped oath was "induced by the government."
The tapes, in fact, made clear the large role that the government informant had played in the case. In one tape, the informant recited what F.B.I. agents said was an authentic Qaeda oath, while the seven men sat on a sofa and chairs in a warehouse that the F.B.I. had wired with eavesdropping equipment. As the informant repeated the words for a second time, each defendant stood and stated his name before they all said in unison that they were committing themselves to the "path of jihad."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 20:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Two U.S. Border Patrol agents under investigation for allegedly smuggling drugs and immigrants abruptly resigned and went into hiding this week after apparently being tipped off to the probe, according to federal law enforcement sources.
The agents brothers Raul and Fidel Villarreal were veteran officers who patrolled the border near San Diego and had been under suspicion since last year of smuggling illegal immigrants in their government vehicles, among other allegations, sources said.
They did not show up for work Monday and later notified supervisors that they had quit because of a family illness. But investigators suspect that someone tipped off the agents and that they may have left the country.
The disappearance threatens to derail the investigation, the latest in a string of unrelated corruption probes that have led to the indictments and convictions of several federal officers along the border.
"Somehow, somebody leaked it, and both resigned," said a source close to the investigation, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. "They left their badges and government credentials at their father's house . Now they're in the wind."
Damon Foreman, a spokesman for the Border Patrol in San Diego, confirmed that the agents had been under investigation for suspected smuggling activity and had submitted their resignations.
Raul Villarreal, 36, was the face of the Border Patrol in San Diego a few years ago when he was a spokesman and was interviewed regularly by Spanish-language media. Fidel, 32, worked in the mountains east of San Diego.
At the modest home the men shared with their parents in National City, a woman identifying herself as their mother said her sons still lived with her. She said she didn't know when they would return. They did not respond to a request for comment made through the woman.
The investigation, which sources said grew out of information gleaned from captured illegal migrants, is being handled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one of several agencies that make up the Border Corruption Task Force. Officials at customs enforcement declined to comment.
The agents were suspected of working with Mexico-based criminal networks to smuggle Mexicans and Brazilians into the country, sources said. The illegal immigrants would cross the border on their own and then be picked up by one of the brothers while on patrol. The migrants then would be delivered to another driver for the organization, sources said.
The status of the investigation is unclear. Such probes often require extensive and delicate evidence gathering, including wiretaps and statements from immigrants, and it is unknown whether authorities were ready to file charges.
"The case isn't dead; it just comes to a screeching halt because the two targets have disappeared. The whole case isn't gone, but you can't move forward anymore," said one source.
Authorities also are investigating the apparent leak of the information, sources said. Officials at multiple federal agencies, including the Border Patrol, had been briefed on the probe. In the past, informants have been known to tip off targets.
The investigation comes amid a recent spate of corruption cases involving Border Patrol agents and customs officers. Authorities say smuggling rings, their traditional trafficking routes blocked by increased enforcement, are enlisting corrupt agents to help them get their loads through.
Last month, two customs officers at the Otay Mesa and San Ysidro ports of entry were charged with waving through cars loaded with illegal immigrants in exchange for cash.
In a case similar to the investigation of the Villarreal brothers, two supervisory Border Patrol agents were charged earlier this year with smuggling migrants in their government vehicles for a Mexican trafficking organization based in Mexicali.
In a case last year, former Border Patrol Agent Oscar Antonio Ortiz admitted as part of a plea agreement that he had conspired to smuggle 100 illegal immigrants into the country. Ortiz himself was an illegal immigrant, having used a false birth certificate to pass himself off as a U.S. citizen, authorities said.
#1
The modern version of the Underground Railroad, but without the idealism.
But somebody is being a bit disingenous, surely. There isn't any reason for the investigation to stop, just because the original subjects ran off. Now investigators can openly subpoena their bank records, telephone records, formally interview everyone they've ever met... The brothers surely didn't operate in a vacuum, and they won't live happily ever after -- wherever they might be -- if all their fellow miscreants end up in jail or deported.
#2
likely they fled to Mexico - best solution? Let it be known they were working both sides and their disappearance may have set back the arrests of numerous drug smugglers...heh heh.
Bet they turn up in separate locations from their heads
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2006 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
" . . . brothers Raul and Fidel . . ."
Is it just me, or is this beyond parody and irony - maybe pirony?
The scientists who crack open the nation's nuclear weapons for a living are never quite sure what they will find inside. Many of the warheads were designed and built 40 years ago, and their plutonium and other components are slowly breaking down in ways that researchers do not fully understand. With no new bombs in production, the government spends billions of dollars each year tending to its aging stockpile.
The Bush administration wants to revamp the entire arsenal with a weapon now on the drawing board named the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The redesigned weapon is needed to ensure "a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear deterrent for the indefinite future," said Linton Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The administration ordered up a competition between Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The two laboratories submitted their proposals for the weapon in March. The White House plans to pick a winner by November. As envisioned, the next-generation nuclear weapon would have the same destructive power as existing ones, but be durable enough to last for decades. The next bomb is also meant to be so secure that it has jokingly been dubbed the "nuclear doorstop" useless for any other purpose, should it fall into the wrong hands.
The government and the labs refuse to discuss details of the two designs, citing national security. But they describe both proposals as "conservative" blueprints meant to assure reliability without violating a moratorium on full-scale nuclear testing in place since 1992. "We're not going to come up with anything cutting-edge and stick it in the stockpile without testing," said David Schwoegler, spokesman for Lawrence Livermore's nuclear weapons program.
The United States has not built a nuclear warhead since 1991. The government spends about $5 billion a year maintaining the weapons, and engineers have patched problems by opening up warheads that were never meant to be opened. The accumulation of tiny engineering changes meant the bombs moved incrementally away from their original designs, with unknown effects.
The White House believes designing a replacement warhead is vital to preserving the nation's nuclear edge, particularly amid looming questions about North Korea, which reportedly possesses several nuclear weapons, and Iran, which the administration fears wants them. The redesign project "means making sure that aging phenomena don't cause us any questions about nuclear reliability," Brooks said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It means making sure that we incorporate safety and security and use-control in a way we didn't know how to do when we designed the stockpile."
Critics, including some former nuclear weapons scientists, question the need to resume nuclear weapons production, at a cost of billions of dollars, when they believe the current stockpile is safe and reliable and can remain so for years. They also question whether a next-generation bomb can improve reliability and safety if it cannot be tested. Congress has financed the research on the condition that the redesigned weapon reduce the need for testing. Opponents fear the project could send the wrong signal to the world at a time when the United States and its allies are trying to curb the spread of nuclear technology.
Brooks said North Korea and Iran play into the project only "indirectly," explaining that the administration would press for the program anyway. "We didn't sit down and say, 'Look, there's problems in Iran. Let's go and invent a new design,'" he said. The project also aims to improve safeguards against accidental detonation or use of the weapons by terrorists, Brooks said. It marks the first time that an American nuclear bomb has been designed with those goals as the top priority.
Proponents say a revamped weapon could help the United States to reduce the number of warheads held in reserve in case other weapons are found to be faulty.
A new weapons production line would be needed to produce the bomb. For instance, the Rocky Flats, Colo., plant that once made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads was shuttered in 1989. Los Alamos can only build a handful per year; the administration is aiming for 10 next year.
Each year, the nation's nuclear arsenal loses about a half-dozen bombs from its reserve of several thousand as the Livermore and Los Alamos teams rip them apart in what is called "destructive analysis." Others are painstakingly dismantled and refurbished with new parts. On Thursday, engineers gathered at a high-security plant near Amarillo, Texas, to toast a milestone: the first rebuild of a B-61 nuclear bomb. It's the oldest warhead in the arsenal, having been designed in the early 1960s and built into the 1970s.
The government is spending $470 million over nine years to refurbish the B-61s. That's money the Bush administration would rather channel into an overhaul of the entire arsenal and the mostly dormant nuclear-weapons complex. Brooks sees the bomb-redesign project as making that complex more adaptable. "Any weapon we have will sooner or later go through some type of modernization or have (some) problem to repair, and right now that takes a very long time," he said.
#1
Good. Our nuclear stockpile will almost be useless in 20 more years. Contrary to what loons think, having nukes does make sane countries think twice about agression against you.
#3
Scooter...as one who was involved in the test program (meaning not a weapons engineer or physicist) I can safely say that a lot of testing was done on individual components compared to the number of tests. If the yield for a device in a test was within the expected range then it meant (most likely) that all of the components worked as designed. There are other means to gauge device effectiveness that are classified.
That being said the problem is that the circuitry, the "Swiss watch components" within the trigger and the device are unstable, and are subject to the same degredation any complex device is (e.g., do you still have the 1st PC you ever owned?). Given the complexity and instability, the limited production, and the general limited experience with nuclear devices...there is no way to accurately assess the MTBF. The estimates were best guesses based on what we knew at the time of assembly. I feel certain there was a lot of non-linearity, and interdependent feedback among the components that was unexpected. Just my 2 cents.
#4
Pending finalization of compensation packages (the Livermore guys are demanding a CA COLA), in the interest of public safety, the public's right to know, and to show the upstarts at the WSJ Opinion Journal just who's boss, full schematics of both designs will be in the NYT by the end of July. Mullahs, despots, and anarchists everywhere, the core NYT constituency, will surely be pleased.
#5
Bad, Bad idea, the expensive (Extensive) maintenance prevents use when (If) captured.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 7:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Every time we do this stuff, the plans end up in the capital of our enemy d'jour before we can complete testing. Why do this? We are wasting money on arms that will never be used and are utterly unneeded.
#10
Considering all my years of existence, I personally think they will never be used except IF (Big IF) they are used by another entity first against either
(A) Our ground forces somewhere abroad, or
(B) possibly a Ground Invasion of the USA, (Even more remote, we don't want to poison our own soil)
(C) A better possibility, an Ocengoing Invasion Fleet heading for the USA.
and any of these possibilities is extremely remote.
They HAVE to be usable, if not usable there's no deterrent, (Fear) that's why we occasionaly blow a small deserted chunk of real estate skyward, also why there's such extensive publicity every time we set one off to prove beyond any doubt they work, but most probably they will never be used in war unless the situation is horribly desperate.
Japan was an entirely different matter, and conditions will never again be the same as then.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 9:00 Comments ||
Top||
#11
(A) What are the circumstances? We deploy overseas and so threaten a nuclear power that they nuke our forces? I doubt that we would do it or that the response would be nuclear except for the wackos like Kimmie. My position is that it is much easier to defang Kimmie if we defang ourselves first. Then we and Kimmie are limited to conventional forces and we win. Producing these new and improved nukes means Kimmie gets new and improved nukes, too.
(B) a ground invasion of the US?
(1) Who would or could invade the U. S.? That this is the second most likely scenario shows how unlikely it is that we will ever use this expensive arsenal.
(2) There is only one way the U. S. could be invaded. That invasion is currently under way and nothing is being done. So the nukes don't protect us from invasion
(C) An invasion fleet approaches and the Navy cannot defend us? This is not a credible scenario for at least 50 years.
The only credible situation in which nukes would be used against us is by terrorists. In which case we could not respond against a nation state in a timely basis, if at all. Thus there is no credible situation in which we would use nukes. So building more sophisticated nukes, of which we are the only conceivable designers, means that we do not increase our security but only increase the sophistication of the weapons available to those who would attack us.
#12
"...that's why we occasionaly blow a small deserted chunk of real estate skyward, also why there's such extensive publicity every time we set one off to prove beyond any doubt they work..."
Eh? It's been almost a half-century since we've blown anything skyward, and the last time we conducted even an underground test was back in September of 1992.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/01/2006 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Exactly, the point has been hammered home, they work.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Over the last few years I've come to think of nukes as Donk-Savers. By that, I picture some future Donk President, playing the fool with a law enforcement approach, yanking all our troops home to, um, drill around in circles, and generally showing such weakness and Tranzi idiocy, painting us into a life or death corner, that only using nukes on everything that even looks like a Muslim will save America. Even a Donk might, at the last moment, realize what a terrible disaster the entire base of lies and bullshit actually is and, contemplating Sundays without a soy Latte and NYT crossword, decide to use the Get Out Of Shit Free card.
They'd be forgiven by the other Donks. Probably even be declared a great hero and greatest moron President ever.
There might be one or two who'd "get it" just before we were plowed under. Doncha think?
#15
Nimble Spemble
I would never give them up for many reasons.
1)we might need them for war or threat
2)we will need them for PloughShare type projects its just a matter of where and when and are they big enough.
IF that dinosaur killing astreriod killer approaches and some non-out of the box thinkers have removed them from our toolkit.. After our deaths my shade will hunt them for eternity as the killers of the spieces through dimness.
#18
3dc, so how much do you want to spend on them and not on additional Special Forces units, training, maintenance and ordnance, logistical lift? This is money being thrown down a rat hole that could be spent much more effectively elsewhare. We don't get any bang for the buck from nukes. And if we ever really need them, we can build them very quickly.
#19
NS - They are needed. If we need more money to do both then shoot the pork loving congress and senate thugs first. Every dollar we need for the war could be squeezed out of pork and lawyers.
#23
One cannot uninvent a weapon and the problem with treaties is that only law abiding states respect them.
Rogue states sign treaties and promptly break them.
Posted by: john ||
07/01/2006 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#24
If no other country has a nuke, the country with ten nukes can dictate many things to the rest of the world.
We may downsize our nuclear arsenal for many of the good reasons listed in the comments, but I doubt we'd eliminate them entirely. If we keep even 100 warheads, and the proper means to deliver them, we have effective nuclear deterrence against anyone.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/01/2006 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Downsize costs and maintence by using a few of them now. Can you think of a few places with a 'Kick Me' postit on its back?
#27
No, we'd hear lawyers screaming "Radioactive Oil" for Centuries.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Hummm, maybe if we could host a "Lawyer's Conference" all expenses paid, it Tehran?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Kant spel fore Shite tuday.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Kant spel fore Shite tuday.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#31
The genie is out of the lamp. If we unilaterally disarm our nukes and sing Kumbaya, then we are subject to nuclear blackmail. There are a bunch of nasty people out there. Hell, we may have nuclear weapons and still be subject to nuclear blackmail by those that wish us harm.
We need to reevaluate our nuclear weapons stockpile just like Rummy reevaluated our armed forces and decided to push for what is needed in upcoming conflicts. We have all of plutonium we probably ever need for sure.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/01/2006 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Why not give our nukes to the Moolahs and then resupply?
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/01/2006 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Besides which that leaves Pakistan more powerful then the US.
In what sense? Pakistan has a nuke. Big whoop. What can they do with it? Or with 10? Destroy 10 cities? Then what? We can destroy them utterly with conventional weapons just as easily as Israel can destroy Palestine.
Pakistan has no power. It can force no one to do anything. It can't even force India to agree on a border. It can't keep the Taliban out. Nukes have only made the Americans more interested.
#34
If we unilaterally disarm our nukes and sing Kumbaya, then we are subject to nuclear blackmail.
No more so than today. And I wouldn't call investing the money wasted on arms we will never use into Special Forces singing Kumbaya. I think it acutally frees us to pursue more aggressive stances internationally.
Lot's going on today. I hope just one of you is thinking over the cost and ineffective pointlesness of our current nuclear arsenal.
#35
#11: (A) What are the circumstances? We deploy overseas and so threaten a nuclear power that they nuke our forces?
Iran, Today.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/01/2006 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#36
I disagree NS and you haven't made a single argument that would convince me - nice try
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2006 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Pakistan has no power. It can force no one to do anything. It can't even force India to agree on a border. It can't keep the Taliban out. Nukes have only made the Americans more interested.
You've never stopped and thought about what 9/11 would have looked like to us if Pakistan had never had nukes?
(And no, I don't mean that as an argument that the US should disarm because that'll make Pakistan's nukes naturally disappear. But they have gotten a lot of mileage out of theirs.)
Posted by: Phil ||
07/01/2006 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#38
No more so than today. And I wouldn't call investing the money wasted on arms we will never use into Special Forces singing Kumbaya. I think it acutally frees us to pursue more aggressive stances internationally.
OK, so we deploy special forces to North Korea and he nukes them. Then the fuck what?
Posted by: Phil ||
07/01/2006 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#39
How interesting. Today's "Nimble Spemble" isn't posting from the usual NS server. Of course, it's possible s/he's on vacation, but I wonder. NS is usually much better at articulating and defending a position. Do we have a 'nymjacker today?
#40
I think Ns has made that argument before, let's not be more paranoid than needed... btw, stop reading my Ip and the "websites" I come from, I feel violated!
#41
anon5089, the moderators only look at the IP addresses when there is suspicion of a troll or someone who is deceptively pretending to be someone else. And we don't look at "websites (you've) come from" at all.
Today is a relatively light day at the 'Burg so far and already there are several hundred comments. I can't speak for other moderators, but I sure don't have time to check on all or even many of them!
It's a service to our regular commenters, not a violation. ;-)
#43
Also: we spent a lot more money developing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems during WW2, when the Army was ten times larger than today anyway, but you're arguing with a much smaller army that a much smaller bill for nuclear weapons is what's holding us back?
Posted by: Phil ||
07/01/2006 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#44
They are a deterrent and looking at the expense of upkeep wise. Can the old warheads be converted to use for fuel in reactors though? If not, maybe we can bury all the waste in the future glass plains of Iran or North Korea.
#45
Like any weapons system, nukes need to be kept ready and upgraded periodically. There are many military programs, all good and vital, that need to be funded. We have a limited amount of funding. So intelligent priorities need to set. That probably is the most difficult task right there. Once you set the defense priorities, then your answers to issues like maintaining, upgrading, and setting levels of nukes becomes a bit easier. There are serious policy differences, leading to heated exchanges. To get to a solution, you have to rationally debate the issue, and get out of the handwaving festival. The solution to the problem lies somewhere between full nuke upgrades and no special forces and no nukes and special forces up the wazoo.
Wait a minute....we do need special forces up in wazoo. Got to rethink this one.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/01/2006 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#46
(1) How quickly and to what capacity CAN we ramp up special forces? We're not talking about adding another production line or one more standard battalion to run through the usual training sequence with a few more NCOs. We're talking significant training for each person, specialized for a certain region and related language and culture, PLUS intense and extensive weapons, combat, intel etc. skills.
The best way to ensure failure in the use of special forces is to water down the requirements or the training for them. Capacity can be added, but not easily and not in a linear fashion I suspect.
(2) To what degree (if any) is the special forces vs. nukes a turf issue between different military branches and/or doctrine?
(3) And - more fundamentally - what is the threat assessment and strategic doctrine in light of which these decisions will be made? In either case, you're talking a major and long-term investment. Those get made in light of national strategy and doctrine -- despite the understandable tendency to address immediate / tactical problems.
#51
Can the old warheads be converted to use for fuel in reactors though?
Both the Plutonium and the Uranium in the surplus warheads can be down-blended for nuclear fuel.
Arsenal still needs to be at least 1000 weapons though. This would provide enough for counterforce attacks on silos and TEL garages plus the major cities of an adversary state.
Posted by: john ||
07/01/2006 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#52
Jeeeezzz.... 5089 that's some weird stuff. Ballons?
#54
The Commies always kept reserve andor hiddden stockpiles - to argue that once the USA disarms the Commies will is fallacious at best, or worse. The USA and NATO for a long time once believed that any NATO-WARSAW PACT mil confrontation in the Fulda Gap would be conventional-only - TIME, etal major US mags came along and reported that the Soviets were ready and willing to use myriad nukes in any battlefield or "conventional" first-strike against NATO's defenses in Western Europe. The best way was Reagan's way > "PEACE/DIPLOMACY/
NEGOTIATION FROM STRENGTH" + "TRUST, BUT VERIFY".
#55
TW... not when the private sector will pay up to $1,000,000 per year for a really good one in the security game. Son's roomate (an ex-Marine - well as x as you get with ready reserve) is training for that. Needs some ninja skills though and that really requires Japanese so that's his current major.
The U.S. Coast Guard shut down the highly volatile ExxonMobil fuel depot in Everett for most of the day yesterday for a serious security breakdown after 15 illegal immigrants were arrested while working for a contractor of the worldwide petroleum giant, officials said. The illegal aliens, all from Ecuador, were hired to clean up hazardous materials near ExxonMobil storage tanks that hold gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene and other volatile materials.
They were arrested after failing to check in with security while attempting to access equipment they had stored next door at Distrigas, which operates a terminal containing potentially explosive liquefied natural gas. There was a serious security breakdown at the ExxonMobil facility, said Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer Scott Carr, adding that all operations were suspended until the company complies with security regulations. The company was allowed to resume operations by 9 p.m. last night after presenting the captain of the port with a new security plan.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Homeland Security officials have been on edge about fuel shipments through Boston Harbor that could cause catastrophic casualties in the event of an attack. Most public attention has focused on the Distrigas LNG tankers, which steam into the harbor under heavily armed sea and air security and dock at the companys Everett facility on the Mystic River. Carr praised Everett police and Distrigas for preventing the workers from getting on the companys property.
Continued on Page 49
Kentucky and North Carolina announced Friday they were sending 950 National Guard soldiers to assist security efforts along the U.S. border with Mexico. North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley said 300 troops had been deployed from his state Friday, and he urged fellow governors to follow his lead. "Federal efforts to secure our borders do not just benefit the border states," the Democrat wrote in a letter to his colleagues. "These security measures affect our entire country."
Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher, a Republican, said the 650 Kentucky soldiers could be deployed by July under a memorandum of agreement with several other states. The troops are to perform support duties, rather than law enforcement, allowing federal authorities to focus on border security. The move comes a month after President George W. Bush announced in May that he would ask states to provide up to 6,000 National Guard troops to help secure the border with Mexico. Bush did not nationalize the guard, so governors are free to assist or not.
As of Thursday, fewer than 1,000 troops were in place at the border, according to military officials in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. Bush's plan called for 2,500 troops to be on the border in support roles by June 30, and 6,000 by the end of July. The National Guard Bureau said Thursday that the goal would be met.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What do you mean unprepared and untrained?
I've never seen a Kentucky man 10 miles from home without a fine rifle, a quart of whiskey and a deck of playing cards....
Paraphraseing Andrew Jackson on word that raw Kentucky malitia were on the way.
The US Defence Department has assured Congress that the weapons systems requested by Pakistan for F-16 jets would not reduce India's quantitative or qualitative military advantage as the capability already exists in the region.
Notifying the Congress about the kind of weapons Pakistan has requested for the jets, it said "Purchase of these weapons systems would not significantly reduce India's quantitative or qualitative military advantage. "Release of the weapons systems will neither affect the regional balance of power nor introduce a new technology as this level of capability or higher already exists in other countries in the region", the Pentagon said.
The Bush administration has approved the sale of 18 new F-16 fighter jets with an option of offering 18 more to Pakistan.
According to the Department of Defence's notification Pakistan had sought major defence equipment including: 500 AIM-120C, 5 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); 12 AMRAAM training missiles; 200 AIM-9M-8/9 SIDEWINDER missiles;500 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Guidance Kits: GBU-31/38 Guided Bomb Unit (GBU) kits; 1,600 Enhanced-GBU-12/24 GBUs/
Posted by: john ||
07/01/2006 14:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Awfully sophisticated ordinance. India has nothing of this quality.
Posted by: john ||
07/01/2006 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'd sell 'em iron bombs without fuses and leave the rest for a class exercise.
Nepal does not need international observers to monitor the arms of Maoist guerrillas or government troops ahead of polls to a special assembly, rebel leaders said on Friday. The comments signalled an about-face in the position of the insurgents who earlier this month had said the two forces should be confined to their respective barracks or camps during the vote and should be under international supervision.
The interim, multi-party government of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, which came to power after mass protests, forced King Gyanendra to relinquish absolute power - is expected to soon invite the United Nations to start the process. "There is no need for other (foreign) friends to involve themselves in our problems," Maoist Leader and Negotiator Dinanath Sharma told Reuters.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The secular pragmatic = blood-thirsty Commies that brought you Siberia, death camps, re-educ camps, gulags and the "killing fields" of Cambodia and Laos, etc. are the good guys, ergo no need for UN-International arms monitors.
You mean they were lying? That's never happened before, has it?
Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao on Friday clarified that the government would not deploy an additional 10,000 troops along the Pak-Afghan border to supplement the current 78,000-strong troop level.
"We wuz only kidding!"
Talking to reporters after a certificate distributing ceremony, also attended by US Ambassador to Pakistan Ryan C Crocker, at Sihala Police Training Centre for police officials who had completed a course in VVIP protection, the minister said that there was no need to increase troop levels since the current deployment was sufficient to guard Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
ISLAMABAD - Pakistani officials plan to visit the U.S. detention centre at Guantanamo Bay next month to check how many of their citizens are being held, Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao said on Friday.
Sherpao said Pakistan had asked the U.S. government to provide consular access to its citizens held in Guantanamo Bay and was trying to secure their release. They (the U.S) have agreed and our team will be going there from 19 to 21st July, the minister told reporters.
Bring Qasi with you, I'm sure we can put him up.
Sherpao said there was some confusion over the number of Pakistanis held at Guantanamo, as the latest figure of 29 does not tally with earlier figures.
The minister said the discrepancy probably meant more Pakistanis were being held at the U.S. airbase at Bagram in Afghanistan, and Pakistani officials would also seek access there.
We'll never tell. And you forgot Diego Garcia. And Mozambique. And Ice Station Zebra.
Pakistan, a key ally of the U.S. in the war on terror, arrested about 700 al Qaeda and Taliban activists and handed them over to U.S. authorities.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Keep em there, then exchange em for UBL
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/01/2006 21:12 Comments ||
Top||
The US military has found more Iraqi weapons in recent months, in addition to the 500 chemical munitions recently reported by the Pentagon, a top defense intelligence official said on Thursday. Lt Gen Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, did not specify if the newly found weapons were also chemical munitions. But he said he expected more. I do not believe we have found all the weapons, he told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, offering few details in an open session that preceded a classified briefing to lawmakers.
Responding to questions from lawmakers anxious to make political points ahead of the November congressional elections, US defense officials said the 500 chemical weapons discovered in Iraq were weapons of mass destruction. However their degraded state may make them more dangerous to those who find them than anyone else.
Maples said the pre-Gulf War rockets and artillery rounds recently reported by the Pentagon were produced in the 1980s and could not be used as intended. If the chemical agent, sarin, was removed from the munitions and repackaged, it could be lethal. Its release in a US city, in certain circumstances, would be devastating, Maples said. But despite statements of concern by Republicans about the risk of terrorists releasing the chemical in the United States, defense officials said the munitions pose as much a threat to people who try to handle them as potential victims. When asked by a Democrat to confirm the weapons pose a risk to troops in Iraq, not Americans at home, Maples said, Yes.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
defense officials said the munitions pose as much a threat to people who try to handle them as potential victims.
They found the janitor again. And the people who try to handle the material are the same people who conduct suicide attacks on a regular basis. I doubt that 'handling' instructions are quite as rigid on the other side as the requirements on ours.
#2
When asked by a Democrat to confirm the weapons pose a risk to troops in Iraq, not Americans at home, Maples said, Yes.
Go figure....
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/01/2006 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
*snicker* I'm so going to enjoy watching them spin this. The contortions they will have to pretzel themselves into are going to become really amusing. Gumby!
#5
nah. If it comes up, they will just get that blank stare, and promptly launch into some other diatribe about Gitmo or Karl Rove, racism, etc. Though you are right that we will never, ever hear another word about the WMDS. Whole issue will disappear, Stalin style.
(KUNA) -- Iraqi police confiscated on Friday stolen antiquities and arrested the smugglers in Thee Gar province southern Iraq, Ministry of Interior said on Friday. The antiquities underwent lab tests and it has been discovered that some were original and others were fake, the ministry's statement said. According to the statement the original pieces were "a pottery jar with two handles with a notched opening, two black stone fragments with a cuneiform writing on it, a hollow sculpture with no head and the lower part" The number of the smugglers is not reported.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Statement by Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, in the Security Council Emergency Session on the Middle East, June 30, 2006
>We are all aware of the seriousness of the situation that is unfolding in the Middle East. Let me state that our first and foremost goal here in the Security Council should be to avoid taking any steps that would unexpectedly exacerbate tensions in the region. To that end, we feel we should tread cautiously before issuing any remarks, much less a formal statement given the complexity of the situation. We should not undermine the limited credibility of the Council by engaging in debate and rhetoric merely for their own sake. Such exercises undermine the United Nations generally and provide evidence for those who say it is all talk and no action.
The United States calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli Defense Force Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas. This is the best way to achieve our shared goal of a peaceful resolution to the immediate crisis. Terrorism of any kind, which this is clearly constitutes, is intolerable and the international community must stand united in opposing it. The attack and hostage-taking by Hamas last week precipitated this crisis, and their refusal to release their hostage continues to place innocent Palestinians in harm's way. We further condemn the brutal murder of eighteen year-old Israeli citizen Eliyahu Asheri, and our condolences go out to his family.
Continued on Page 49
To me, it would seem to be a no brainer. All the Paleos have to do is to release Cpl. Shalit (unharmed). The invasion, the airstrikes, everything would go away. Israel would probably immediately release all the arrested Hamas ministers. Other than a severe loss of face, and a bunch of repairs to the electrical system, everything would be as it was before.
Of course, I also think it is very likely that Cpl Shalit is already dead. In which case, Hamas is truly f!cked. They can bluster all they want, and demand concessions from Israel, and all kinds of other things, but unless they can raise someone from the dead, they are screwed.
One more comment: the kidnapping of Cpl Shalit is not an act of terrorism. It is an act of war. Killing Eliyahu Asheri was terrorism.
#2
Amen, Rambler. Kicking ass and naming names. In the diplowuss world, this is pure nitro. The Vulture Elite must drink themselves into stuporous sleep and wake up with raging hangovers daily. Permanent cringe. Gotta love it. Bolton rocks their world.
The Palestinian prime minister said Friday that Israel's offensive is aimed at toppling the Hamas-led government, but maintained he is working with mediators to resolve the crisis over a captive Israeli soldier. Israel kept up the pressure in Gaza, destroying the interior minister's office and targeting a car carrying militants in an airstrike. Israel also said it attacked a militant cell, killing a local Islamic Jihad leader the first reported death in the offensive. With the crisis threatening to boil over into major fighting, the U.N. Security Council scheduled an emergency debate Friday. The Palestinians sought for a resolution condemning Israel's actions and demanding a halt to all military operations.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh urged his people to remain steadfast. Though he did not directly address Israel's demand that militants hand over the abducted soldier, he implied the government would not trade him for eight Palestinian Cabinet ministers detained by Israel on Thursday. He also accused Israel of using the soldier's abduction as a pretext for launching a major offensive with the aim of bringing down his government. This total war is proof of a premeditated plan, he said.
What were the daily rocket attacks on Israel, the death of two soldiers and the kidnapping of one soldier and a civilian?
Haniyeh spoke in a sermon at a Gaza mosque on Friday, the Muslim day of worship, as Hamas gunmen stood guard outside. It was his first public appearance since Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, 19, was captured Sunday in a militant raid on an army post in Israel that sparked the crisis and sent Hamas' top leaders into hiding.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This total war is proof of a premeditated plan
#2
I don't know about premeditated, but I recognize a cracking-good ass-stomping when I see it. Roll on, Israel. I'll be buying a LOT of pizza for the IDF, lol.
You're dead, dood. Hiding in mosques (per FoxNews reporting) won't save your murderous ass.
#3
Ismail, it may come as a surprise, but you're not the center of the world. Nobody in Israel---including our most ardent lefties---cares if you live or die.
#4
I can't remember where I read it yesterday, but just imagine that the Navy shelled the living crap out of some place (let's say some garden spot in North Korea), and then President Bush said, "Hey, like, I can't control those guys! They're nuts! I'll try to, you know, talk them down and stuff, but no guarantees."
I'm sure the rest of the world would buy that, too.
I do have to agree with him on one point, however. One Israeli, civilian or soldier, is worth far more than eight miserable Palestinian Cabinet ministers.
#5
Israel has over 60 Hamas VIPs in custody by now -- government ministers, MPs, etc -- and plans to try them on a variety of terror-related charges. They are currently being processed at one of the maximum security facilities.
Swamp Blondie, it was Barbara Skolaut who suggested that. Truly a startling thought.
#7
TW - someone else suggested that was what Hamas was doing. I just suggested it would be fun for President Bush to try it.
(Well, it would. Leftie seething would be a sight to behold. :-D)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/01/2006 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Yet the MSM and the left hold Bush and Rummie personally responsible for the acts of some idiots in a prison in Iraq one night - it was front-page for over a year and was already being investigated.
BANDUNG: A crusade against Islam by US President George W Bush and his allies is doomed to fail, Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir said on Friday, two weeks after finishing a jail term for links to bombings in Bali. But the man Indonesian and Western officials describe as the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah, a militant group linked to Al Qaeda, also said violence should be reserved for defending Islam in conflict zones like Iraq and Palestinian territories. Civilians should not be deliberately targeted, he said.
Asked why officials so frequently said he was tied to violence, Bashir, barefoot and wearing his traditional white skullcap, shirt and a blue and green sarong, told Reuters: I am a cleric. I do not understand bombs. Even if I see one, I do not understand it. But I explain the right Islam and the Westerners are afraid of my tongue, not my hands. The white-bearded and bespectacled Bashir has consistently denied any connection to Bali or other attacks blamed on Jemaah Islamiah, which he has said does not exist, and is still appealing against his conviction. Speaking in an interview in Indonesias hill country city of Bandung, 140 km (85 miles) southeast of Jakarta, Bashir also contended Bush and others created the terrorism issue as an excuse to attack Islam.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
step up to plate and go to Afghanistan or Iraq little "man". Be a real defender of islam instead of some pantywaist, pussy preacher calling for jihad from a safe distance.
#4
Strange isn't it how the US defended Muslims in Kuwait and Kosovo and how many more muslims are alive today in Iraq now that Saddam is no longer able to butcher them without a wit of criticism from asshats like you.
#6
UW, he and real muslims are stuck in a "Us vs Them" mode; no matter who does what, what counts is there is the Master Religion with its various grade of Holiness (starting with the Profit's kin and his tribe, then the Arab Master Race in general), pitted against the kufrs to reclaim its due, coz allan knows best and gave them the world.
#7
At some point the light will dawn that enough of the executors of terrorism have been deleted, and that now it is time for a systematic program to erase the instigators.
Priests of all stripes are notorious for advocating peace and non-violence when their own butts are on the line.
The UN children's agency on Friday said it has met with Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, asking them to stop recruiting underage fighters and immediately release those already enlisted. A three-member UNICEF delegation visited the rebel-controlled town of Kilinochchi on Wednesday and met with the representatives of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE, blamed in the past for abducting children and using them as soldiers. "We emphasized the need to cease all underage recruitment and release all such children," UNICEF communication officer Junko Mitani told AP.
UNICEF says the Tigers are holding up to 1,358 child soldiers, despite the guerrillas' pledges to free all combatants under age 18. Last month, the Tigers said in a statement that they have returned 16 youth, aged 15-17, to their families.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A senior Iranian cleric vowed today that his country would never talk with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program, as an American official underscored the need for Iran to respond next Wednesday to a package of incentives offered by major powers in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment. The pronouncement by the cleric, Ahmad Khatami, at Friday prayers in Tehran today marked a 180-degree shift from a month ago, when Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrote to President Bush calling for the opening of a dialogue.
However, the dithering has gained them another month. They can now stretch that out to at least another 60 days as the ins and outs of it discussed over and over...
In fact, European leaders had pressed for years for the United States to join earlier rounds of talks with Iran, and when the Bush administration decided in late May to offer to join any new discussions, the move was seen as a major concession and a prime inducement for Tehran. On Tuesday, however, Iran's Fearless supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he saw "no use" in talking with the United States.
That will, of course, be our fault for not being nicer or something...
And today, Mr. Khatami went further, declaring that "with regards to our nuclear case, we have nothing to do with the U.S. and principally, our officials will have no talks with the U.S.," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency. "Who is the U.S., that pokes its nose into Iran's nuclear affairs?" he asked. "Should anybody that has power and bullies get to be present on all scenes?" Mr. Khatami said that Iran was willing to talk with European leaders if they recognized Iran's right to pursue nuclear power. "If Europeans really intend to solve the issue, they should recognize our absolute rights," he said. "Then, one can sit down at the table to negotiate the executive methods, the international treaties as well as controls and supervision."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IOW, it once again comes down to either America concedes to Radical Iran, or America-Allies attack and invade. NORTH KOREA-TAIWAN is still on the other side of the region.
#2
I'm convinced the Norks have upped the ante (missile test threat), in response to the US's pressure on Iran's nuke developement determination. The "Axis Of Evil" declaration by "W" hit them hard, and they swallowed it hook line and sinker! The Nork's are helping their 'brothers in crime' knowing 100% that they'll be next after Iran is conquered!
#4
Not sure that the "Axis of Evil" speak did anything other than affirm the obvious. NoKo nuke tech cooperation with the Moolahs has been underway for at least a decade.
As always with the Moolahs, consider their actions not their words. AhMad is out pushing a muslim coaltion against the West, Iranian soldiers caught in Iraq, etc., etc.
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/01/2006 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Moud has now proclaimed that Iran will continue wid its uranium enrichment, while Osama has released new tapes threatening to strike America anywhere, including within America itself. IOW, America remains under threat for new 9-11's, which in turn indir justifies Dubya's foreign policies including but not limited invading Iran per se.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
AELLBERG, Sweden - Saudi Arabias ambassador to the United States said on Friday Saudi citizens detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre should be allowed to return to their homeland to face trial there. Attending a conference on globalisation, Prince 
Britain's parliamentary Defence Select Committee Friday called on Prime Minister Tony Blair's government to explain the purpose of the country's retaining nuclear weapons.
Traian Basescu, the Romanian president, yesterday said a defence ministry proposal to withdraw its troops from Iraq was "unacceptable". Calin Tariceanu, the prime minister, backed the plan to withdraw Romania's 890 troops from Iraq by the end of this year on the grounds that the mission was too costly. 
Anxious to show voters back home that Congress can do something about high gas prices, House lawmakers approved legislation Thursday that would expand drilling for oil and natural gas off most of the U.S. coast and Alaska. The bill, which passed on a 232-187 vote, would end a ban on new domestic offshore drilling that for 25 years confined such activity almost exclusively to the western and central Gulf of Mexico.
The seven men who were arrested here last week on terror charges were shown Friday on undercover videotapes solemnly reciting oaths of loyalty to Al Qaeda, repeating the words that an F.B.I. informant had given them to say. The tapes, played at a federal court hearing by prosecutors, did not provide any evidence that the men had the money or firepower to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and federal buildings in five cities, as they are accused of conspiring to do, or that they had any actual ties to Al Qaeda. But during her presentation, the prosecutor, Jacqueline M. Arango, disclosed other new details of the case, among them that the group's leader, 
Kentucky and North Carolina announced Friday they were sending 950 National Guard soldiers to assist security efforts along the U.S. border with Mexico. North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley said 300 troops had been deployed from his state Friday, and he urged fellow governors to follow his lead. "Federal efforts to secure our borders do not just benefit the border states," the Democrat wrote in a letter to his colleagues. "These security measures affect our entire country."
Nepal does not need international observers to monitor the arms of Maoist guerrillas or government troops ahead of polls to a special assembly, rebel leaders said on Friday. The comments signalled an about-face in the position of the insurgents who earlier this month had said the two forces should be confined to their respective barracks or camps during the vote and should be under international supervision. 
The US military has found more Iraqi weapons in recent months, in addition to the 500 chemical munitions recently reported by the Pentagon, a top defense intelligence official said on Thursday. Lt Gen Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, did not specify if the newly found weapons were also chemical munitions. But he said he expected more. I do not believe we have found all the weapons, he told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, offering few details in an open session that preceded a classified briefing to lawmakers. 
(KUNA) -- Iraqi police confiscated on Friday stolen antiquities and arrested the smugglers in Thee Gar province southern Iraq, Ministry of Interior said on Friday. The antiquities underwent lab tests and it has been discovered that some were original and others were fake, the ministry's statement said. According to the statement the original pieces were "a pottery jar with two handles with a notched opening, two black stone fragments with a cuneiform writing on it, a hollow sculpture with no head and the lower part" The number of the smugglers is not reported.
>We are all aware of the seriousness of the situation that is unfolding in the Middle East. Let me state that our first and foremost goal here in the Security Council should be to avoid taking any steps that would unexpectedly exacerbate tensions in the region. To that end, we feel we should tread cautiously before issuing any remarks, much less a formal statement given the complexity of the situation. We should not undermine the limited credibility of the Council by engaging in debate and rhetoric merely for their own sake. Such exercises undermine the United Nations generally and provide evidence for those who say it is all talk and no action.
The Palestinian prime minister said Friday that Israel's offensive is aimed at toppling the Hamas-led government, but maintained he is working with mediators to resolve the crisis over a captive Israeli soldier. Israel kept up the pressure in Gaza, destroying the interior minister's office and targeting a car carrying militants in an airstrike. Israel also said it attacked a militant cell, killing a local 
BANDUNG: A crusade against Islam by US President George W Bush and his allies is doomed to fail, Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir said on Friday, two weeks after finishing a jail term for links to bombings in Bali. But the man Indonesian and Western officials describe as the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah, a militant group linked to Al Qaeda, also said violence should be reserved for defending Islam in conflict zones like Iraq and Palestinian territories. Civilians should not be deliberately targeted, he said. 
The UN children's agency on Friday said it has met with Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, asking them to stop recruiting underage fighters and immediately release those already enlisted. A three-member UNICEF delegation visited the rebel-controlled town of Kilinochchi on Wednesday and met with the representatives of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE, blamed in the past for abducting children and using them as soldiers. "We emphasized the need to cease all underage recruitment and release all such children," UNICEF communication officer Junko Mitani told AP. 
A senior Iranian cleric vowed today that his country would never talk with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program, as an American official underscored the need for Iran to respond next Wednesday to a package of incentives offered by major powers in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment. The pronouncement by the cleric, 
